The Genesis Conflict - 102 - A Universal Flood

[Youwerecreated]

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches),


LOL

Yeah a pair of T-Rex's could fit in a cage that size. A pair of elephants could. A pair of rhinos could. A pair of Mastodons could. A pair of Brontosauruses could.

You and this chemist are 2 peas in a pod .

Oh and you still ignored the other 99% of Joe's post.

I guess you didn't understand the term juvenile. I believe out of faith that this took place I have no reason not to trust whats recorded in the bible.

Luk 18:27 And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

So that brings us back to the question, how did life come into existence from lifeless matter ?

Which brings us back to the point that you seem to consider a question that cannot be conclusively answered to be proof of god.

Well surely it proves it could not have happened on it's own.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches),


LOL

Yeah a pair of T-Rex's could fit in a cage that size. A pair of elephants could. A pair of rhinos could. A pair of Mastodons could. A pair of Brontosauruses could.

You and this chemist are 2 peas in a pod .

Oh and you still ignored the other 99% of Joe's post.

I guess you didn't understand the term juvenile. I believe out of faith that this took place I have no reason not to trust whats recorded in the bible.

Luk 18:27 And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

So that brings us back to the question, how did life come into existence from lifeless matter ?

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

 

[Youwerecreated]

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches),


LOL

Yeah a pair of T-Rex's could fit in a cage that size. A pair of elephants could. A pair of rhinos could. A pair of Mastodons could. A pair of Brontosauruses could.

You and this chemist are 2 peas in a pod .

Oh and you still ignored the other 99% of Joe's post.

I guess you didn't understand the term juvenile. I believe out of faith that this took place I have no reason not to trust whats recorded in the bible.

Luk 18:27 And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

So that brings us back to the question, how did life come into existence from lifeless matter ?

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

Wrong juveniles are smaller but not as small as you stated. And we established this belief I have is through faith. But what about yours concerning origins of life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please go through all the points he made, and prove them wrong scientifically. Don't just repeat old talking points you've used that have also been shredded.



When I read your posts I imagine circus music playing.

Nah I'm not gonna waste my time with that again so you can say it's not possible

Good time to wave the white flag, kudos.

Nope,first off he is going by the number of animals discovered after the flood up until now you do not know how many there really existed at that time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches),


LOL

Yeah a pair of T-Rex's could fit in a cage that size. A pair of elephants could. A pair of rhinos could. A pair of Mastodons could. A pair of Brontosauruses could.

You and this chemist are 2 peas in a pod .

Oh and you still ignored the other 99% of Joe's post.

I guess you didn't understand the term juvenile. I believe out of faith that this took place I have no reason not to trust whats recorded in the bible.

Luk 18:27 And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

So that brings us back to the question, how did life come into existence from lifeless matter ?

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

While we are at are you gonna address the video and questions raised or just ignore them or try and change the conversation ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I guess you didn't understand the term juvenile. I believe out of faith that this took place I have no reason not to trust whats recorded in the bible.

Luk 18:27 And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

So that brings us back to the question, how did life come into existence from lifeless matter ?

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

Wrong juveniles are smaller but not as small as you stated. And we established this belief I have is through faith. But what about yours concerning origins of life ?

See there you go, why not just say that in first place?

Why do you care about science when so many of your beliefs are based off things in which you admit don't fit into science?

Your whole view on life is that a god magically created everything in a matter of days, so why can't you just say you think god use his supernatural powers to make Noah's Ark float and fit all those animals without enough room?

Your beliefs aren't based on science or scientific facts, and that's perfectly fine, but I just wish you'd be honest with yourself and others and stop pretending they are.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I guess you didn't understand the term juvenile. I believe out of faith that this took place I have no reason not to trust whats recorded in the bible.

Luk 18:27 And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

So that brings us back to the question, how did life come into existence from lifeless matter ?

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

While we are at are you gonna address the video and questions raised or just ignore them or try and change the conversation ?

Joe already squashed the entire video, that's why I'm trying to get you to respond to his post, which you refuse to.

 

[LOki]

Funny how the critiques in this thread can't seem to provide an explanation for a phenomenon that is seen world wide.

Keep up the good work exposing the liars that say otherwise.

What phenomenon exactly is it "that is seen world wide," but critics "can't seem to provide an explanation for?"

The phenomenon is all the evidence that supports a global flood world wide that your side ignores and calls ignorance.

But I don't expect you to be able to see real evidence and reason from it.

It would certainly be easy for me to point out that the reason I don't see your "real evidence" is that your "real evidence" first requires you to believe your conclusions are true in order for you to "see" that it is "real evidence" that supports the truth of your conclusion.

Instead, I will simply ask, "What evidence precisely?" I see evidence (reasonably world wide) of local floods, occurring throughout and at distinctly different times in history, but not evidence this single global flood.

I admit that I might have missed this particular bit of evidence in the discussion that demonstrates that floods are real; that they have happened in the past; and that they happen (and have happened) at the variety of locations presented (and certainly others as well) at various times--so I'm asking you to direct me to the evidence that speaks to the world-wide nature of the flood.

 

[LOki]

Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals which perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in “fossil graveyards” as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored of the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

The continents are, on average, covered with sedimentary rock to a depth of about one mile. Some of the rock (chalk, for instance) is essentially 100% fossils and many limestones also contain high percentages of marine fossils. On the other hand, some rock is barren. Suppose that, on average, marine fossils comprise .1% of the volume of the rock. If all of the fossilized marine animals could be resurrected, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 1.5 feet. What did they eat?

The famous Green River formation covers tens of thousands of square miles. In places, it contains about 20 million varves, each varve consisting of a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. According to the conventional geologic interpretation, the layers are sediments laid down in a complex of ancient freshwater lakes. The coarser light sediments were laid down during the summer, when streams poured run-off water into the lake. The fine dark sediments were laid down in the winter, when there was less run-off. (The process can be observed in modern freshwater lakes.) If this interpretation is correct, the varves of the Green River formation must have formed over a period of 20 million years.

For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.

At all costs, creationists avoid discussing how fossils came to be stratified as they are. Out of perhaps thousands of pages Henry Morris has written on creationism, only a dozen or so are devoted to this critical subject, and he achieves that page count only by recycling three simple apologetics in several books. The mechanisms he offers might be called victim habitat, victim mobility, and hydraulic sorting. In practise, the victim habitat and mobility apologetics are generally combined. Creationists argue that the Flood would first engulf marine animals, then slow lowland creatures like reptiles, etc., while wily and speedy man escaped to the hilltops. To a creationist, this adequately explains the order in which fossils occur in the geologic column. A scientist might test these hypotheses by examining how well they explain the fact that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. A scenario with magnolias (a primitive plant) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed along with early mammals, is unconvincing.

Ever since George McCready Price, many creationists have pointed to overturned strata as evidence against conventional geology. Actually, geologists have a good explanation for overturned strata, where the normal order of fossils is precisely reversed. The evidence for folding is usually obvious, and where it's not, it can be inferred from the reversed fossil order. But creationists have no explanation for such strata. Could the Flood suddenly reverse the laws of hydrodynamics (or whatever)? All of the phenomena which characterize overturned strata are impossible for creationists to explain. Well-preserved trilobites, for instance, are usually found belly down in the rock. If rock strata containing trilobites are overturned, we would expect to find most of the trilobites belly up. Indeed, that is what we do find in overturned strata. Other things which show a geologist or paleontologist which way is up include worm and brachiopod burrows, footprints, fossilized mud cracks, raindrop craters, graded bedding, etc. Actually, it's not surprising that creationists can't explain these features when they're upside down; they can't explain them when they're right side up, either.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

Wrong juveniles are smaller but not as small as you stated. And we established this belief I have is through faith. But what about yours concerning origins of life ?

See there you go, why not just say that in first place?

Why do you care about science when so many of your beliefs are based off things in which you admit don't fit into science?

Your whole view on life is that a god magically created everything in a matter of days, so why can't you just say you think god use his supernatural powers to make Noah's Ark float and fit all those animals without enough room?

Your beliefs aren't based on science or scientific facts, and that's perfectly fine, but I just wish you'd be honest with yourself and others and stop pretending they are.

So many of my beliefs are based on both faith and factual science.

I have given many reasons why I believe what the bible say's,those my friend are not just faith based.

Because I Disagree with the theory of evolution and a few other theories does not mean my beliefs are in faith only.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL

So now your argument is a a pair of juvenile elephants are a few inches tall and wide? That's so cute

And no we're not changing the subject, it's about a global flood. Please address the other 99% of Joe's post, so I can be as entertained as I was when you tried explaing the 1% you did with your Bible blog .

While we are at are you gonna address the video and questions raised or just ignore them or try and change the conversation ?

Joe already squashed the entire video, that's why I'm trying to get you to respond to his post, which you refuse to.

You show me where he did that or is this just one more example of ignorance ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What phenomenon exactly is it "that is seen world wide," but critics "can't seem to provide an explanation for?"

The phenomenon is all the evidence that supports a global flood world wide that your side ignores and calls ignorance.

But I don't expect you to be able to see real evidence and reason from it.

It would certainly be easy for me to point out that the reason I don't see your "real evidence" is that your "real evidence" first requires you to believe your conclusions are true in order for you to "see" that it is "real evidence" that supports the truth of your conclusion.

Instead, I will simply ask, "What evidence precisely?" I see evidence (reasonably world wide) of local floods, occurring throughout and at distinctly different times in history, but not evidence this single global flood.

I admit that I might have missed this particular bit of evidence in the discussion that demonstrates that floods are real; that they have happened in the past; and that they happen (and have happened) at the variety of locations presented (and certainly others as well) at various times--so I'm asking you to direct me to the evidence that speaks to the world-wide nature of the flood.

The video pointed out the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms and is the reason why gould and eldredge had to come up with an explanation as to why all of a sudden all complex organisms just showed up. It's called punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals which perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in “fossil graveyards” as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored of the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

The continents are, on average, covered with sedimentary rock to a depth of about one mile. Some of the rock (chalk, for instance) is essentially 100% fossils and many limestones also contain high percentages of marine fossils. On the other hand, some rock is barren. Suppose that, on average, marine fossils comprise .1% of the volume of the rock. If all of the fossilized marine animals could be resurrected, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 1.5 feet. What did they eat?

At all costs, creationists avoid discussing how fossils came to be stratified as they are. Out of perhaps thousands of pages Henry Morris has written on creationism, only a dozen or so are devoted to this critical subject, and he achieves that page count only by recycling three simple apologetics in several books. The mechanisms he offers might be called victim habitat, victim mobility, and hydraulic sorting. In practise, the victim habitat and mobility apologetics are generally combined. Creationists argue that the Flood would first engulf marine animals, then slow lowland creatures like reptiles, etc., while wily and speedy man escaped to the hilltops. To a creationist, this adequately explains the order in which fossils occur in the geologic column. A scientist might test these hypotheses by examining how well they explain the fact that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. A scenario with magnolias (a primitive plant) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed along with early mammals, is unconvincing.

Ever since George McCready Price, many creationists have pointed to overturned strata as evidence against conventional geology. Actually, geologists have a good explanation for overturned strata, where the normal order of fossils is precisely reversed. The evidence for folding is usually obvious, and where it's not, it can be inferred from the reversed fossil order. But creationists have no explanation for such strata. Could the Flood suddenly reverse the laws of hydrodynamics (or whatever)? All of the phenomena which characterize overturned strata are impossible for creationists to explain. Well-preserved trilobites, for instance, are usually found belly down in the rock. If rock strata containing trilobites are overturned, we would expect to find most of the trilobites belly up. Indeed, that is what we do find in overturned strata. Other things which show a geologist or paleontologist which way is up include worm and brachiopod burrows, footprints, fossilized mud cracks, raindrop craters, graded bedding, etc. Actually, it's not surprising that creationists can't explain these features when they're upside down; they can't explain them when they're right side up, either.

So you're argument is based on natural disasters that occurred after the global flood.

 

[LOki]

Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals which perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in “fossil graveyards” as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored of the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

Ever since George McCready Price, many creationists have pointed to overturned strata as evidence against conventional geology. Actually, geologists have a good explanation for overturned strata, where the normal order of fossils is precisely reversed. The evidence for folding is usually obvious, and where it's not, it can be inferred from the reversed fossil order. But creationists have no explanation for such strata. Could the Flood suddenly reverse the laws of hydrodynamics (or whatever)? All of the phenomena which characterize overturned strata are impossible for creationists to explain. Well-preserved trilobites, for instance, are usually found belly down in the rock. If rock strata containing trilobites are overturned, we would expect to find most of the trilobites belly up. Indeed, that is what we do find in overturned strata. Other things which show a geologist or paleontologist which way is up include worm and brachiopod burrows, footprints, fossilized mud cracks, raindrop craters, graded bedding, etc. Actually, it's not surprising that creationists can't explain these features when they're upside down; they can't explain them when they're right side up, either.

So you're argument is based on natural disasters that occurred after the global flood.

Non-sequitur much?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

So you're argument is based on natural disasters that occurred after the global flood.

Non-sequitur much?

Oh boy ,did you expect me to agree with you ?

 

[LOki]

The phenomenon is all the evidence that supports a global flood world wide that your side ignores and calls ignorance.

But I don't expect you to be able to see real evidence and reason from it.

It would certainly be easy for me to point out that the reason I don't see your "real evidence" is that your "real evidence" first requires you to believe your conclusions are true in order for you to "see" that it is "real evidence" that supports the truth of your conclusion.

Instead, I will simply ask, "What evidence precisely?" I see evidence (reasonably world wide) of local floods, occurring throughout and at distinctly different times in history, but not evidence this single global flood.

I admit that I might have missed this particular bit of evidence in the discussion that demonstrates that floods are real; that they have happened in the past; and that they happen (and have happened) at the variety of locations presented (and certainly others as well) at various times--so I'm asking you to direct me to the evidence that speaks to the world-wide nature of the flood.

The video pointed out the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms and is the reason why gould and eldredge had to come up with an explanation as to why all of a sudden all complex organisms just showed up. It's called punctuated equilibrium.

I missed the discussion of this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" and still can't find it. Do you have some idea where in the vid it is found?

I'm interested, because to the best of my knowledge, no such layer that conforms to the predictable expectations unique to a global flood has been discovered.

 

[LOki]

So you're argument is based on natural disasters that occurred after the global flood.

Non-sequitur much?

Oh boy ,did you expect me to agree with you ?

No. I expect that your response would have point in reference to what you were responding.

I also figured you would understand that non-sequitur does not mean disagree. I should have recognized that non-sequitur is another term that's above your intellectual pay grade.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It would certainly be easy for me to point out that the reason I don't see your "real evidence" is that your "real evidence" first requires you to believe your conclusions are true in order for you to "see" that it is "real evidence" that supports the truth of your conclusion.

Instead, I will simply ask, "What evidence precisely?" I see evidence (reasonably world wide) of local floods, occurring throughout and at distinctly different times in history, but not evidence this single global flood.

I admit that I might have missed this particular bit of evidence in the discussion that demonstrates that floods are real; that they have happened in the past; and that they happen (and have happened) at the variety of locations presented (and certainly others as well) at various times--so I'm asking you to direct me to the evidence that speaks to the world-wide nature of the flood.

The video pointed out the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms and is the reason why gould and eldredge had to come up with an explanation as to why all of a sudden all complex organisms just showed up. It's called punctuated equilibrium.

I missed the discussion of this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" and still can't find it. Do you have some idea where in the vid it is found?

I'm interested, because to the best of my knowledge, no such layer that conforms to the predictable expectations unique to a global flood has been discovered.

I am gonna ignore all the other threads if you wish to continue this is the only thread I will respond in. Tired of jumping from thread to thread.

I'm sorry my mistake here is the video you may not have seen.

103 - Bones In Stones - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[Youwerecreated]

Non-sequitur much?

Oh boy ,did you expect me to agree with you ?

No. I expect that your response would have point in reference to what you were responding.

I also figured you would understand that non-sequitur does not mean disagree. I should have recognized that non-sequitur is another term that's above your intellectual pay grade.

I know what it means and I asnwered it already. Trying to keep up with too many threads so I am gonna ignore the other threads.

 

[Dr.Drock]

While we are at are you gonna address the video and questions raised or just ignore them or try and change the conversation ?

Joe already squashed the entire video, that's why I'm trying to get you to respond to his post, which you refuse to.

You show me where he did that or is this just one more example of ignorance ?

It's the very first reply in this thread. He shreds every second of the video.

Now please reply to his points and scientifically state how he's wrong.

This time please don't tell me 2 T-Rex's can fit in a 10 inch box as your explanation. At least try.